If the Tories have any sense, they will repeal the monstrous Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
Yep. Someone upthread commented that they could circumvent it by voting down their own government (with a simple majority), then voting down the next government which forms (again, with a simple majority). Laughable.
I think he is high quality Norman Lamb. The Lib Dems could coalesce around him and try to make a comeback fighting in by-elections.
I still believe the Lib Dems will bounce back from this.
I agree with that. Lamb is the right person not Farron.
Isn't he just continuity coalition though? Just seen Tom Brake blasting the SNP and Ukip for 'nationalism' but letting the Tories off the hook. If they want to be the new government's candid friend they'll go nowhere.
Hmnm. On Tuesday of this week I told mr Morris Dancer I thought labour would get 220 or less. Looks like I won't be far wrong. Shorted labour seats in the 260s waiting for the make up.
My concern about the pollsters seems to have been proved right. We're going to have to see some massive changes, but I cannot really see how they can improve things.
One thing they must do is stop doing polls on a daily basis. Once a week for each of the companies is enough.
If - as they were - inaccurate on vote shares, then publishing daily polls is an attempt by the polls themselves and not those seeking election to set the mood music, to set the narrative. And that is wrong.
They seem to be asking the wrong mix of people.
What I find interesting about the polls is that they were broadly right on the one thing we all thought they would have the most difficulty with - which was the UKIP vote share. If they had been catastrophically wrong on that and as a result we had the Tory win we have today then perhaps it could have been understandable given the difficulties with a relatively new party with a rapidly rising vote share since the last election.
But since they got UKIP about right then it is strange that they were consequently so rwong about the overall Labour/Tory share.
My view is that UKIP had a far larger impact on the Labour vote than on the Tory vote and this accounts for some of the problems the pollsters had. They got the amount of votes right for UKIP but they got it utterly wrong on where those votes were coming from.
I think he is high quality Norman Lamb. The Lib Dems could coalesce around him and try to make a comeback fighting in by-elections.
I still believe the Lib Dems will bounce back from this.
I agree with that. Lamb is the right person not Farron.
Farron is not the right person for anything political. He is my MP and I constantly feel amazed that fellow voters have failed to see through this lightweight.
His top level is that of the measuring assistant in a Burton Tailoring store.
Quick post re. comparisons to 1992-7. You have to remember that came at the fag-end of a 11 year rule and the Conservatives were in internal warfare over the deposition of Margaret Thatcher. In addition the ERM fiasco so early on derailed them for the remainder of the parliament.
I think Cameron will have a very different experience with a lot more self-discipline based on a desire to win next time. Also don't forget that 230 Lab + 55 SNP is a very different opposition from 285 Lab. Quite apart from anything else SNP MP's will not attend and vote at Westminster the whole time.
But they've got literally one thing to fight for together. What manifesto did they run on? Out of Europe referendum, and... ? ? ? ? This gap weakens Cameron's authority to tell them to do anything.
Exactly. There are three things which are significant obstacles for the Tories; EU ref, austerity impact, and Scotland. On top of that, if Cameron goes after 2017 it will feel like the end of an era and the 'fag-end' of a government.
Or if Cameron goes after 2017 it feels as a fresher, rejuvenated government.
Really? Cameron by far is their biggest asset. Boris isn't a sure-fire bet to succeed and the likes of Osborne are walking electoral disasters.
Three to four years is a long time for someone else to emerge. People like Major, Blair or Cameron (or Miliband or IDS for less successful ones) were a long way below the radar that length of time before they became leader of their party.
Not really. The Miliband brothers were talked of some years before their rise to prominence, as Johnathan notes this was the same for Blair and Brown. The Tories I see tipped on here are the likes of Shapps, Osborne, and Javid; who I don't think are electorally viable candidates.
I suspect Nick Clegg always knew in his heart of hearts that the differentiation strategy was wrong but he was pushed into it from Vince Cable, Lord Oakeshott, etc...
@WillHillBet: Next Labour Party Leader http://t.co/DNw3WBnJyf 7/4 Chuka Umunna 5/2 Andy Burnham 3/1 Yvette Cooper 8/1 Dan Jarvis 12 David Miliband
All disastrous choices
Yvette Cooper and Dan Jarvis would both be excellent choices.
Why?
Cooper would be their first female leader. She's clever and comes across as tolerant and sensible - she will likely have more support in the party than Miliband did.
Jarvis has a great back story. A normal upbringing, a decorated soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a likeable way about him.
I think he is high quality Norman Lamb. The Lib Dems could coalesce around him and try to make a comeback fighting in by-elections.
I still believe the Lib Dems will bounce back from this.
I agree with that. Lamb is the right person not Farron.
Farron is not the right person for anything political. He is my MP and I constantly feel amazed that fellow voters have failed to see through this lightweight.
His top level is that of the measuring assistant in a Burton Tailoring store.
Yes, but people said the same about Ed Miliband.... errr
I think he is high quality Norman Lamb. The Lib Dems could coalesce around him and try to make a comeback fighting in by-elections.
I still believe the Lib Dems will bounce back from this.
I agree with that. Lamb is the right person not Farron.
Farron will hose up
Doesn't matter if its Jesus Christ the Lib Dems are destroyed for a generation. No socks in sandals person will forget the broken promises, or the fact they couldn't play as a team Uncle Vince and his mucker Oakshott are lagely to blame for that.
Vince Cable's loser speech was probably the least gracious of those made by high profile losers. He also did least well in hiding his disappointment. The tearful Tory who defeated him looked like she could not believe it.
I agree about Vince. A bad loser underneath his "elderly statesman" veneer. Having spent his time talking about nuking his partners, he got his just deserts for his duplicity and whining.
Cable personifies what went wrong with the Lib Dems. Rather than bargain hard then stick to the deal, they consistently rolled over and then tried to distance themselves, with the result that they looked neither capable or trustworthy.
This is the Tory analysis. The Lib Dems should have been nicer to the Tories, and let the Tories do more Tory things. But half their 2010 voters, at least, quit for the Greens and Labour, and a few went to Ukip and Conservative. How would being a Tory-enabler have helped that?
They should have bagged their own policies in return and then run on that record. To have done so would have meant taking on departmental ministries, the failure to argue for was the first and one of the most serious of Clegg's errors.
@WillHillBet: Next Labour Party Leader http://t.co/DNw3WBnJyf 7/4 Chuka Umunna 5/2 Andy Burnham 3/1 Yvette Cooper 8/1 Dan Jarvis 12 David Miliband
All disastrous choices
Yvette Cooper and Dan Jarvis would both be excellent choices.
Why?
Cooper would be their first female leader. She's clever and comes across as tolerant and sensible - she will likely have more support in the party than Miliband did.
Jarvis has a great back story. A normal upbringing, a decorated soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a likeable way about him.
Yes but the important support needed is from outside the current party faithful.
If Labour has any sense - hmmmm - they'll forbid anyone who was a cabinet minister between 1997 and 2010 from standing for the leadership. Let Chukka, Liz, Dan and co battle it out. For me Jarvis would buy Labour by far the best hearing in the country generally, but I doubt he has the base as yet within the party.
So let me get this straight. Labour dramatically underperformed its poll share like it has done in every election since 2014? See my many posts to that effect over recent weeks.
Re Slackbladder's comments about Murdoch picking winners, I noted that 3-4 days ago he was tweeting enthusiastically about something Yvette Cooper had written. I wondered then if he expected Labour to lose and would be backing Cooper as new leader.
Vince Cable's loser speech was probably the least gracious of those made by high profile losers. He also did least well in hiding his disappointment. The tearful Tory who defeated him looked like she could not believe it.
I agree about Vince. A bad loser underneath his "elderly statesman" veneer. Having spent his time talking about nuking his partners, he got his just deserts for his duplicity and whining.
Cable personifies what went wrong with the Lib Dems. Rather than bargain hard then stick to the deal, they consistently rolled over and then tried to distance themselves, with the result that they looked neither capable or trustworthy.
This is the Tory analysis. The Lib Dems should have been nicer to the Tories, and let the Tories do more Tory things. But half their 2010 voters, at least, quit for the Greens and Labour, and a few went to Ukip and Conservative. How would being a Tory-enabler have helped that?
They should have bagged their own policies in return and then run on that record. To have done so would have meant taking on departmental ministries, the failure to argue for was the first and one of the most serious of Clegg's errors.
No party tries not to implement its policies. Perhaps the Tories outmanouvered them with institutional experience of government, but it's hard to say what at all they could have done about that.
My concern about the pollsters seems to have been proved right. We're going to have to see some massive changes, but I cannot really see how they can improve things.
One thing they must do is stop doing polls on a daily basis. Once a week for each of the companies is enough.
If - as they were - inaccurate on vote shares, then publishing daily polls is an attempt by the polls themselves and not those seeking election to set the mood music, to set the narrative. And that is wrong.
They seem to be asking the wrong mix of people.
What I find interesting about the polls is that they were broadly right on the one thing we all thought they would have the most difficulty with - which was the UKIP vote share. If they had been catastrophically wrong on that and as a result we had the Tory win we have today then perhaps it could have been understandable given the difficulties with a relatively new party with a rapidly rising vote share since the last election.
But since they got UKIP about right then it is strange that they were consequently so rwong about the overall Labour/Tory share.
My view is that UKIP had a far larger impact on the Labour vote than on the Tory vote and this accounts for some of the problems the pollsters had. They got the amount of votes right for UKIP but they got it utterly wrong on where those votes were coming from.
Absolutely right Richard. I've been saying for years that its absurd to just add Conservative and UKIP together and say "this is what Cameron should have if ..." - if the UKIP voters wanted Conservative, they'd vote Conservative.
UKIP have gained a large number of Lib Dem votes as protest voters abandoned the Lib Dems who went into government and went to the new, upstart protest party. This prevented the Labour "Lib Dem crutch" that OGH has spoken about for years. UKIP have also absorbed votes that could have gone to the opposition party of Labour.
UKIP have displaced Lib Dems as the protest party and there's been essentially no Labour:Tory swing.
UKIP are not Tories, hopefully that myth can be dispelled for good now.
If Labour has any sense - hmmmm - they'll forbid anyone who was a cabinet minister between 1997 and 2010 from standing for the leadership. Let Chukka, Liz, Dan and co battle it out. For me Jarvis would buy Labour by far the best hearing in the country generally, but I doubt he has the base as yet within the party.
Labour needs to work out what it is for. Badly, and as for the Lib Dems. WELL
My concern about the pollsters seems to have been proved right. We're going to have to see some massive changes, but I cannot really see how they can improve things.
One thing they must do is stop doing polls on a daily basis. Once a week for each of the companies is enough.
If - as they were - inaccurate on vote shares, then publishing daily polls is an attempt by the polls themselves and not those seeking election to set the mood music, to set the narrative. And that is wrong.
They seem to be asking the wrong mix of people.
What I find interesting about the polls is that they were broadly right on the one thing we all thought they would have the most difficulty with - which was the UKIP vote share. If they had been catastrophically wrong on that and as a result we had the Tory win we have today then perhaps it could have been understandable given the difficulties with a relatively new party with a rapidly rising vote share since the last election.
But since they got UKIP about right then it is strange that they were consequently so rwong about the overall Labour/Tory share.
My view is that UKIP had a far larger impact on the Labour vote than on the Tory vote and this accounts for some of the problems the pollsters had. They got the amount of votes right for UKIP but they got it utterly wrong on where those votes were coming from.
Quick post re. comparisons to 1992-7. You have to remember that came at the fag-end of a 11 year rule and the Conservatives were in internal warfare over the deposition of Margaret Thatcher. In addition the ERM fiasco so early on derailed them for the remainder of the parliament.
I think Cameron will have a very different experience with a lot more self-discipline based on a desire to win next time. Also don't forget that 230 Lab + 55 SNP is a very different opposition from 285 Lab. Quite apart from anything else SNP MP's will not attend and vote at Westminster the whole time.
But they've got literally one thing to fight for together. What manifesto did they run on? Out of Europe referendum, and... ? ? ? ? This gap weakens Cameron's authority to tell them to do anything.
Exactly. There are three things which are significant obstacles for the Tories; EU ref, austerity impact, and Scotland. On top of that, if Cameron goes after 2017 it will feel like the end of an era and the 'fag-end' of a government.
Or if Cameron goes after 2017 it feels as a fresher, rejuvenated government.
Really? Cameron by far is their biggest asset. Boris isn't a sure-fire bet to succeed and the likes of Osborne are walking electoral disasters.
Three to four years is a long time for someone else to emerge. People like Major, Blair or Cameron (or Miliband or IDS for less successful ones) were a long way below the radar that length of time before they became leader of their party.
Hardly, for example Blair and Brown were cited as future leaders before 92.
Loads of people are cited as future leaders but few ever make it. I didn't mention Brown on purpose; he was an exception. But four years before Blair became leader, he was Shadow Employment Secretary. From what I remember, he did quite well in the job and showed potential to go further but it was far from clear that he'd be a leader.
The point is that by 2018/19, I expect people like May and Hammond will have had their day. Hague has already retired. Six Lib Dems have left the cabinet. There'll be a lot of upward movement and some will come good enough to be potential leaders by the end of the parliament.
Presumably Rupert is now cancelling that ridiculous YouGov tracker poll he's been wasting his money on for the past five years?
The one which lulled labour into thinking they were safe with ed despite the crapness? Interesting use of "wasting".
Nick Palmer even said the more polls the merrier... We've seen comfort polling at it's worse in this Parliament.
The industry needs to go back to basics. Half the online pollsters should just disappear and we should go back to around 10 major surveys a month like we had in all other Paliaments before 2010.
They were complicit in their own destruction. As leader he bears much responsibility, but they backed going into coalition, didn't break away earlier and didn't force him to stand down before this GE. It would be a mistake for the party, what is left of it, to take the easy route and blame it all on him and what he did. They won't learn properly from that.
If Labour has any sense - hmmmm - they'll forbid anyone who was a cabinet minister between 1997 and 2010 from standing for the leadership. Let Chukka, Liz, Dan and co battle it out. For me Jarvis would buy Labour by far the best hearing in the country generally, but I doubt he has the base as yet within the party.
But what's Jarvis's USP? He was a serving soldier (unusual for Labour), and that seems to be it. Not sure he's the man.
The common link between ghe Tories and SNP is very strong leader ratings. Of course FFA will be offered to the Scots now. I think the unionis pretty much done.
I recall Norman Lamb (and Liam Fox) on Question Time at the height of the tuition fees issue (with an audience packed with teachers), facing Sadiq Khan. Whether it's Lamb's brilliance or Khan's rubbishness, the audience somehow ended up on the side of Lamb and Fox despite the yawning open goal.
Have waited for my adult life to see SLAB stuffed and mounted. Last night was wonderful, I would like to thank all those hard working SNP types for making this possible.
Your comment last night genuinely made me think we'd have EICIPM.
Just threw it in there to rattle the PB Hodges. On the bright side, in my constituency we had a big swing.Never queued for 20 minutes to get in a polling booth before.
I recall Norman Lamb (and Liam Fox) on Question Time at the height of the tuition fees issue (with an audience packed with teachers), facing Sadiq Khan. Whether it's Lamb's brilliance or Khan's rubbishness, the audience somehow ended up on the side of Lamb and Fox despite the yawning open goal.
The best bet in the middle of the night that I have ever had. I still can't work out what made the price on a Tory majority drift so suddenly and so much
Comments
How quickly they forget...
Con was right to oppose AV
and
Con was right to defeat Lords reform
Nobody could ever have dreamt that over the last 3 years!!!!
But since they got UKIP about right then it is strange that they were consequently so rwong about the overall Labour/Tory share.
My view is that UKIP had a far larger impact on the Labour vote than on the Tory vote and this accounts for some of the problems the pollsters had. They got the amount of votes right for UKIP but they got it utterly wrong on where those votes were coming from.
He should have stood his ground though.
Supreme Tipster Of All Time.
Jarvis has a great back story. A normal upbringing, a decorated soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a likeable way about him.
My only little consolation is that we won in Ealing Central and Acton where I canvassed by a very slim margin.
6.2% lead.
Con gains from Lab (8): Bolton W, Southampton Itchen, Derby N, Morley, Telford, Plymouth Moor View, Gower, Vale of Clwyd.
What is turnout looking like?
Commiserations to the yellows.
so absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Tories ripping you a new one in England and Wales then?
6 required now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000603
UKIP have gained a large number of Lib Dem votes as protest voters abandoned the Lib Dems who went into government and went to the new, upstart protest party.
This prevented the Labour "Lib Dem crutch" that OGH has spoken about for years.
UKIP have also absorbed votes that could have gone to the opposition party of Labour.
UKIP have displaced Lib Dems as the protest party and there's been essentially no Labour:Tory swing.
UKIP are not Tories, hopefully that myth can be dispelled for good now.
PEMWAS
The Tories will win the next two elections - this is 1983 repeated, not a re-run of 1992.
Con 41%
Lab 32%
UKIP 14%
LD 8%
Greens 4%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/england
The point is that by 2018/19, I expect people like May and Hammond will have had their day. Hague has already retired. Six Lib Dems have left the cabinet. There'll be a lot of upward movement and some will come good enough to be potential leaders by the end of the parliament.
The industry needs to go back to basics. Half the online pollsters should just disappear and we should go back to around 10 major surveys a month like we had in all other Paliaments before 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
I recall Norman Lamb (and Liam Fox) on Question Time at the height of the tuition fees issue (with an audience packed with teachers), facing Sadiq Khan. Whether it's Lamb's brilliance or Khan's rubbishness, the audience somehow ended up on the side of Lamb and Fox despite the yawning open goal.
Incidentally, did Farron win?
Mrs BJ retires later this year so maybe less frequently after that but it is bloody addictive so maybe just as much.
One for the road for now Eds Idiotic Cameron Is PM (EICIPM)
Lynsey Kiely (@lynseykiely)
08/05/2015 09:47
#GE2015 pic.twitter.com/AuCQN5VosF
In fact, they will win a majority with a lead of 6%!
Labour 37% (-1)
Cons 27% (+1)
UKIP 14% (+12)
Plaid Cymru 12% (-1)
Lib Dems 7% (-13)
Others 3% (+2)
CON MAJORITY NAILED ON!
Nick 'Hubris' Palmer's Tic got Tocked.
Any one of them will do..